The Clipboard: British Memo: U.S. Hopes to Cut Force in Iraq in Half by Early 2006

From an article¹:

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The current troop level is about 160,000.

Reid on Sunday did not dispute the authenticity of the document, but said that no decision on troop levels had been made. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said officials there had not seen the document.

The undated memo, which was reported Sunday in the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."

While top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials have been hoping to reduce troop levels in Iraq for some time, the British memo is apparently the first time such a significant reduction has been outlined under a specific timetable. President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal date amid military concerns that such a deadline would allow insurgents to wait out the U.S.-led occupation.

The memo notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious." There are more than 135,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq. (link)

First, read up on the background. The British have been talking about this for three months now (since April).

Next, trace this particular story. The memo is here. British newspaper the Daily Mail received the leaked memo and wrote an article. Then Reuters picked it up and sent it out over the wires. All of the other stories (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, more ) including the Washington Post article posted here, are based on the Reuters story. The Post appears to be the first American paper to do some legwork on the story, such as asking the Pentagon for comment.

Finally, check out this from a month ago (June 9, to be exact):

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Thursday that the rebuilding of Iraq could be hampered by the Bush administration's failure to follow through on measures necessary for success.

Clark, who was a candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, also said he expects the Army to announce a substantial pullout of troops from the region by the end of the summer.

''Barring some vast systemic change in Iraq in which the reception of the troops ... was entirely different, I think it's clear that we need to reduce the size of the forces there,'' Clark told The Associated Press.

He expected an announcement on this by the end of the summer? Obviously, the man has got sources.

Update: On the one hand, commanders in Iraq deny the claims in the memo. But on the other hand, the Pentagon is now saying U.S. May Begin Iraq Troop Drawdown in '06. What the truth?

The White House spins, but Iraq's prime minister said Tuesday that U.S. and other foreign troops could begin handing over security to Iraqis in selected cities.

Also: Indulge your tinfoil hat tendencies with a conspiracy theory.

Later: Don't Call It An Exit Plan, a good round-up of the state of play.

Update 7/25: Joint US-Iraqi task force to set terms for US troop exit.

Update 7/27: Now the story is all over the place (Al-Jazeera, Washington Post, Associated Press, Guardian). Rumsfeld, U.S. commander Casey, and Iraqi PM Jaafari have confirmed that the U.S. plans to draw down its troop presence in 2006. This is exactly what the leaked memo said (and the announcement that Clark had predicted would be made); they denied it then but announce it now. Guess the Brits just jumped the gun in leaking it.

Update 8/2: Reuters reports: U.S. and British ambassadors met senior Iraqi ministers on Tuesday to discuss the transfer of security from foreign to Iraqi forces, a process that lays the groundwork for the withdrawal of foreign troops. It was the first meeting of a body dubbed the "commission for conditions-based transition", which will decide over the coming months which parts of Iraq are safe enough for Iraqi forces to take over and let foreign troops pull back. The body, made up of Iraq's interior and defence ministers, its national security adviser, the U.S. and British ambassadors, and the top foreign military commanders, said it would make its first recommendations to Iraq's prime minister next month. It looks like this really is beginning to move forward. Everything previously had been leaks and rumors; but more than talk is going on now, it appears. This also appears to be the same task force mentioned in the 7/25 update.

Update 8/6: The New York Times reports on CENTCOM commander Abizaid's secret briefing at the Pentagon about Iraq withdrawal plans. Another sign that it's real this time. I wonder if Abizaid was doing this while the Pentagon was still denying the Reid memo.

Update 8/20: Army planning for 4 more years in Iraq. "The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq - well over 100,000 - for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday." What this seems to be saying is that the Army is preparing for the possibility that this might be necessary, but the actual decision would be made by the commanders in the field whether or not to draw down. I should have also noted a story from August 14 about Bush dressing Casey down for his phased withdrawal talk.

Update 8/24: US general sees significant withdrawal in Iraq during 2006, although US sends more combat troops to Iraq ahead of referendum.

Update 9/2: Not so many troops to be sent for the Iraqi referendum after all?

Update 9/12: Iraqi president says U.S. could withdraw up to 50,000 troops by end of 2005.

Update 9/13: Or not.

Update 11/19: It's ba-ack! Casey gives Rumsfeld withdrawal plan (also American plan for first troop withdrawals within month.

Update 11/22: The Washington Post confirms that a phased drawdown is planned for 2006. Rumsfeld had indicated as much over the weekend.

Update 11/27: And now everybody is talking about it.

Update 11/30: The Times of London reports US to pull out most of National Guard.

---

Complete text of the article, British Memo: U.S. Hopes to Cut Force in Iraq in Half by Early 2006, by Glenn Frankel and Josh White

The United States and Britain are drawing up plans to withdraw the majority of their troops from Iraq by the middle of next year, according to a secret memo written for British Prime Minister Tony Blair by Defense Secretary John Reid.

The paper, which is marked "Secret -- UK Eyes Only," said "emerging US plans assume that 14 out of 18 provinces could be handed over to Iraqi control by early 2006," allowing a reduction in overall U.S.-led forces in Iraq to 66,000 troops. The current troop level is about 160,000.

Reid on Sunday did not dispute the authenticity of the document, but said that no decision on troop levels had been made. In Washington, a Pentagon spokesman said officials there had not seen the document.

The undated memo, which was reported Sunday in the newspaper The Mail on Sunday, stated that "current U.S. political military thinking is still evolving. But there is a strong U.S. military desire for significant force reductions to bring relief to overall U.S. commitment levels."

While top U.S. military commanders and Pentagon officials have been hoping to reduce troop levels in Iraq for some time, the British memo is apparently the first time such a significant reduction has been outlined under a specific timetable. President Bush has refused to set a withdrawal date amid military concerns that such a deadline would allow insurgents to wait out the U.S.-led occupation.

The memo notes a debate between U.S. officials at the Pentagon and military leaders in Iraq, saying that officials in Washington favor "a relatively bold reduction in force numbers," differing with battlefield commanders, "whose approach is more cautious." There are more than 135,000 U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

Such debates contribute to frequent contingency planning, according to U.S. officials, and there can be several different scenarios at the same time. A rapid reduction in troops would represent one of the more optimistic views, requiring several political processes to play out successfully in Iraq alongside the success of emerging Iraqi security forces.

While U.S. commanders have praised the development of the Iraqi Army and police forces, training and equipping the units has taken longer than expected. None of the provinces in Iraq are currently solely protected by Iraqi forces, and expected significant decreases of U.S. troop strength have not materialized.

"At any given time, there are a number of plans, for all sorts of developments, good or bad," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter, a Pentagon spokesman. Carpenter declined to comment specifically about the British memo because Pentagon officials had not seen it. "The U.S. leadership for some time has been on record stating that our drawdown and eventual withdrawal is based on a conditions-based strategy."

Many analysts consider the major impediment to troop withdrawals is the tenacity of the Iraqi insurgency, although many U.S. officials are heralding recent success in quelling violence.

Part of the overall reduction, said the memo, would drop total British forces by mid 2006 from the current 8,500 to around 3,000. The change, the memo added, could save Britain half of its current cost of around $1.8 billion per year.

"None of this, however, represents a ministerially endorsed plan," the memo cautioned. "There is a good deal more military analysis to do which is under way."

Reid, in a statement Sunday following publication of the memo, insisted that "we have made it absolutely plain that we will stay in Iraq for as long as is needed.

"No decisions on the future force posture of UK forces have been taken. But we have always said that it is our intention to hand over the lead in fighting terrorists to Iraqi Security Forces as their capability increases," Reid said. "We therefore continually produce papers outlining possible options and contingencies.

"This is but one of a number of such papers produced over recent months covering various scenarios."

British forces have been assigned to four relatively peaceful provinces around the southern city of Basra. But 89 British troops have died since the March 2003 Iraqi invasion. The war has little support among the British public and officials are keen to pull forces out of the area as soon as practical, but Blair has insisted no troops will be withdrawn until Iraqi forces can take over.

British commanders hope to hand over control of two provinces to Iraq by October 2005, according to the memo, and to hand over control of two more provinces by April 2006.

reference=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071000725.html?nav=rss_nation/special